Thursday, April 1, 2010

The ACLU Gene Patent Decision from an Investor's Perspective: A Black Eye for the US Patent System

I am trying to put myself into the shoes of a biotechnology investor, and when I do I'm not real happy with the US patent system right now. I'm not well-versed with legal decisions dating back nearly a century dealing with the patentability of citrus fruit treated with mold resistant borax or purified tungsten, the primary case law used by the district court in its decision that the Myriad claims reciting isolated polynucleotides are patent ineligible. I'm not even that sure as to this distinction between "patent eligibility" and patent validity.

However, I do know that for years investors have been willing to invest in biotechnology based in large part upon a belief that patent protection is available for innovation in this important technological sector. For 30 years, the Supreme Court's decision in Diamond v. Chakrabarty, which held that patent protection is available for "anything under the Sun made by man,” including a microorganism modified by the introduction of naturally occurring DNA sequences, had established that in the US patents would be available for biotechnology inventions, including so-called "gene patents."

I know that years ago the US Patent and Trademark Office issued guidelines specifically finding that isolation of a naturally occurring DNA sequence can render it patentable. These guidelines point to a number of earlier decisions in which isolated biomolecules, such as human adrenaline and the molecules responsible for the smell of strawberries, were found to be patentable because the isolation of these biomolecules created a new product with distinct useful properties unavailable absent isolation of the molecules from their native source.

I might also be aware that the controversy over gene patents has been around for many years, and the Federal Circuit has never done anything to indicate that claims such as Myriad's invalidated isolated polynucleotides claims are patent ineligible. In fact, in In re Fisher, decided I believe around 2005, a panel of the Federal Circuit explicitly address the patentability of EST sequences, short segments of naturally occurring genetic DNA. In that case, Affymetrix submitted an amicus brief arguing that naturally occurring genetic sequences are patent ineligible, citing essentially the same case law and rationale as used by the district court in ACLU case. Even though the argument was presented to the Federal Circuit, it never gave any indication in its decision that the argument had any legs.

And look at Europe, which after years of debating the issue has come around to what we thought was the US position, and allowed for the patenting of genetic inventions. Myriad's patents have been challenged in Europe, and the patents have withstood the challenge, albeit the scope has been reduced somewhat, as discussed in a previous post on this blog.

There is something seriously wrong with a patent system that would allow investors to believe for 30 years that these sorts of inventions are patentable, which has resulted in literally thousands of patents and a huge amount of investment, before essentially pulling the rug out from under these investors. That's why it's so important that the Federal Circuit intervene and reverse the district court, at least with respect to most of the claims.

The claims which I think might have trouble in the Federal Circuit are process claims reciting methods for analyzing for genetic mutations in the BRCA genes, without any limitation requiring some physical act of isolating or analyzing the actual DNA molecule. Under the current state of affairs, after Bilski and Prometheus decisions, I think these claims are in trouble. I think Myriad is aware of this problem, which is why they argued to the district court that the claims inherently are limited to processes that involve some physical isolation and the collection of DNA, although I think the district court correctly ruled that the claims do not include such a limitation.

If it turns out these sorts of method claims are not patentable, there are implications as we move into an era of personalized medicine. There is talk about a time in the not-too-distant future when patients will have their entire genome sequence for a reasonable cost. In that case, diagnosis for a genetic mutation would not necessitate any physical transformation of molecular DNA, only analysis of information, so how valuable will method claims be that require some actual physical manipulation of DNA in the United States?

12 comments:

Sometimes, Chris, law catches up with justice, and people lose money in the process, but justice is more important. Imagine the horror to investors in the slave trade when slavery was abolished in the US. While hardly equivalent in the scale of evil involved, investors lost money, and the abolition of slavery comported with people's (well, many people's) notions of justice. As I argued in my book, in the parts you didn't comprehend or bother to read, there are fundamental ethical issues that make the patents that Myriad and other companies hold incursions on a commons-by-necessity, which violates deontological ethical principles, outweighing any utilitarian calculus. There are simply parts of the universe that cannot be laid claim to justly by govt-sanctioned monopolies. I'm glad the court made this bold move, and again, while not comparable in scale of evil, I hope this case reflects a new era akin to that ushered in by Brown v. Topeka Bd. of Education.

I have made zip, zero, nada, 0$ off the book, thanks, it's an academic book, not a popular one, and if you knew anything about academic publishing, you'd know no such books ever make the author any money.

Equating the ownership of individuals to the ability to exclude others from using, making and selling a newly discovered isolated chemical compound is unbecoming of an academician. I appreciate and respect decent and another point of view. My problem is with emotionally charged asinine comparisons.

genepatents: and even a cursory reading of my book, or my articles, or my op-eds on the subject would demonstrate to you that I make no such literal comparison (save a provocative title, which was likewise used by Scientific American years before regarding the same subject - those shameless PR-mongers), and I thoroughly confront the illogic of the claim that "isolated and purified" genes are in any way worthy of patents, both ethically, and legally, with detailed argument. Numerous academics agree, some disagree.

Actually, any fair analysis of patent laws effects on research, prior to Chakrabarty vs post Chakrabarty, would show that the black eye has been planted solidly on our public research institutions. Universities, as a direct result of genetic patenting, have become insular beggars of private, corporate, strings-attached funding. Research at our public institutions now largely benefit a few companies instead of all Americans. Developments and techniques are now kept secret rather than shared between public institutions. Your argument is further sullied by a cursory look at funding of non-profitable, or less profitable genetic research, like that being done on MS, where funds are readily available as a result of the larger public good. However, in light of the likes of the Cato institute and the Birchers now occupying our Federal benches, I don't think this ruling will stand, unfortunately. And your great companies will be free to make their enormous profits at will.

I have a web site where I give advise on penny stocks and stocks under five dollars. I have many many years of experience with these type of stocks. If their is anyone that is interested in these type of stocks you can check out my web site by just clicking penny stocks. I would like to take a moment to talk about low price stocks not classic penny stocks or stocks under one dollar the term most people most often think of when the word penny stock is used. Their are companies of really decent quality trading under five dollars’ but for every one company trading under five dollars that is of decent quality their are maybe ten of poor quality. So the really big difference between those investors that are tremendously successfull when it comes to investing in low price stocks and those investors that lose enormous amounts of money investing in stocks under five dollars’ is having a great deal of knowledge and experience when it comes to low price stocks’ or having a total lack of knowledge and experience when it comes to low price stocks. Finding quality stocks under five dollars requires a lot more research than finding a decent stock above ten dollars.

About Me

I am a law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law. My primary research interests lie at the intersection of biotechnology and intellectual property. This blog provides analysis and commentary on recent developments relevant to this area of the law.